So it turns out Terry McAuliffe and Ken Cuccinelli were able to draw away enough votes to keep Robert Sarvis from winning Virginias governors race. I hope the folks who put those guys on the ballot are happy.

Last night, my Twitter feed had quite a few conservatives laying the blame on Sarvis for costing Cuccinelli the election (which really isnt true according to polls, and it probably wouldnt even had been a close outcome but for the Obamacare mess). So in the spirit of reconciliation, here are some tips from a typical third-party voter to major party movers and shakers who are trying to figure out how to approach us. Note: I live in California and therefore did not vote in Virginias gubernatorial race. If I had, I probably would have voted for Sarvis.

You need to make an actual case for your candidate. Once you wade out of the red team versus blue team fight, you have to set aside the mentality that comes with it. Too many folks were still making the argument that Cuccinelli was better than McAuliffe when they needed to be making the argument that Cuccinelli was better than Sarvis. Timothy Carney at the Washington Examiner took on this task later in late October and made some good points about Cuccinelli. It probably wouldnt have been enough to get my vote, but it was at least enough to make me think it over.

As the article notes, polls shows Sarvis pulled more votes from McAuliffe, and I suspect that most people who vote for any third party candidate simply would not vote rather than vote for a major party candidate.

Exactly!!
This article is just pure bullsh-t. This close mindedness is why some libertarians will never gain respect - because they are more label sensitive than any Republican ever thought about being. Took more from Mac? Really? Is that why Sarvis got 9% of those who oppose Obamacare - which is virtually all of his voters? They were really Mac voters? Really?

No self respecting libertarian would claim Sarvis. The Pauls spit him out like vomit. He was financed by liberal Clintonista buddies of McAuliffe ..and yet, this clown still spouts his crap.

5
posted on 11/06/2013 12:31:02 PM PST
by C. Edmund Wright
(Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)

This idiot reminds me why I never read anything from the turds at Reason.com. They are brain dead when it comes to the threat of Demoncats and their enthusiastic advocacy for illegal alien amnesty is revolting.

I have long felt that Libertarians would vastly increase their political power if, instead of supporting candidates who cannot win, they would as a party primary select one of the real candidates whom they would support.

This would make them a key voting bloc up for grabs by both parties, rather than the oddball spoiler role they play with zero chance at having any influence in government.

So Reason will carry water for anyone with an L next to his name, regardless of the statist policies he supports. You know, because they’re so different from the party sheep who blindly support guys with other letters next to their names.

The leaders of this movement are not interested in increasing the total power of the libtard movement .(which is different from true John Stossel style libertarians) - they want to be big fish in their small pond of pure irrelevance .

This is why no third party is the answer, because any party management attracts scum by definition .

12
posted on 11/06/2013 12:34:27 PM PST
by C. Edmund Wright
(Tokyo Rove is more than a name, it's a GREAT WEBSITE)

I don’t know what to say anymore it is depressing here in southeastern Montgomery County PA. Every neighborhood around me (former red areas) had sweeping democrat wins on school boards and other positions. It is depressing. What more failure from that party do they need to witness???? The evidence is all around them!

Libertarians who would vote for Mcauliffe over ANYBODY are simply living a fantasy. No Democrat is ever going to promote a libertarian society. Big Mac and his ilk are the ultimate, up-your-*ss regulatory statists. Libertarians like this guy and his attempt to be oh-so logical and rational with his choice is pathetic. Cuccinelli was “Perot-ed” plain and simple.

15
posted on 11/06/2013 12:35:50 PM PST
by D_Idaho
("For we wrestle not against flesh and blood...")

Sarvis was nothing more than a Trojan Horse quite similar to others used by the Marxists to pull votes away from the conservatives. Clinton used this strategy several times. It is nothing new. However, it is still effective.

17
posted on 11/06/2013 12:36:30 PM PST
by Don Corleone
("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")

Never blame the voters for your loss. The candidates’ job is to woo voters, if they didn’t woo enough to win that’s on the candidate and their staff. The voters’ job is to vote for the candidate they feel best represents them, they ALWAYS do their job right, even if we think they voted for the wrong guy.

19
posted on 11/06/2013 12:36:58 PM PST
by discostu
(This is Jack Burton in the Pork Chop Express, and I'm talkin' to whoever's listenin' out there.)

I looked at all of the people who lost due to libertarians and constitutionalists in the recent election cycles. They include Mia Love, Denny Rehberg, Richard Mourdock, Jon Porter, Jackie Walorski(first time), Vernon Parker. Of course as you can see they were all rinos(not).

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.